Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 August 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion | Log

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 04:37, 15 March 2023 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
< August 10 August 12 >

August 11

[edit]

Category:German Communists opposed to the Third Reich

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename all. Kbdank71 13:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:German Communists opposed to the Third Reich (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Red Orchestra (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Rename to Category:Communists in the German Resistance and Category:Red Orchestra (espionage), respectively. When I first saw Category:German Communists opposed to the Third Reich, I thought to myself, "Why would we need such a category -- surely, ALL German Communists were opposed to the Third Reich?!" So this category really only makes sense if it's for people who were in the Resistance. As for the sub-cat, Category:Red Orchestra, the rename will be consistent with the name of the main article, Red Orchestra (espionage). Cgingold (talk) 23:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Robot categories

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: No consensus on Theraputic and Ecological. Rename Category:Artistic robots to Category:Artistic and performing robots, Category:Biomimetic robots to Category:Biomorphic robots, and Category:Robot caused deaths to Category:Deaths caused by industrial robots. Kbdank71 14:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ecological robots (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Delete Category:Ecological robots - This is an extremely narrow category with only a single article and little if any potential for growth.

Rename the following categories:
Category:Biomimetic robots (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Therapeutic robots (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Robot caused deaths (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Artistic robots (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Cgingold (talk) 22:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose all - most of the categories within Category:Robots are named according to the corresponding subfield of robotics, such as the categories under discussion here. The renaming proposed do not appear to have wide acceptance within robotics literature. Specifically -
  • The use of "biomimetic" is well established, while "animalian" is not (see [1] and [2], for example). Furthermore, biomimetic robotics deal with robots with roots in humans, animals, and insects, and this new category name unnecessarily restricts the scope to just animals.
  • To begin with, Wiki Category names are not restricted to the sometimes overly jargonistic names that may be in use in particular academic or technical fields. "Biomimetics" is not at this point a commonly understood term for non-specialists -- and more importantly, I also think that it doesn't adequately convey the salient characteristic of the sorts of robots in the category: namely that they resemble animals. They are, thus, "Animalian" -- a term which does, in fact, encompasses humans and insects, as well as other animals. Cgingold (talk) 00:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are two kinds of medical robots: Category:Therapeutic robots and Category:Surgical robots. "medical" is implied here in the individual categories, and the addition is unnecessary. Again - there is no wide acceptance of the phrase "Medical and therapeutic robots".
  • Artistic robots - this category includes more than just music performing robots. Drawing, dancing, etc.
  • Ecological robotics is an recent but active subfield of robotics. See [3], for example. There are not that many real-life robots (because frankly, people don't create radiation environments just to test robots), but the theoretic background is substantial. Any robot that draws power from its environment can be considered in this category - think solar or radioisotope thermoelectric generator based planetary rovers.
  • I have no objection in principle to this category, but as things stand it has just one article, so it falls short of what is generally allowed for "free-standing" categories. But if you can find other articles to expand the contents I would be more than happy to withdraw this nomination. Cgingold (talk) 00:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Robotic machinery implies industrial robots, where this categories potentially includes future "self-aware" robot caused deaths (under investigation by roboethics). "machinery" is simply unnecessary. I don't mind renaming "Robot caused deaths" to "Deaths caused by robots", but is that necessary?

Robotics is an academic field, and the decisions here should consider the vast literature involved. While I appreciate the efforts of the nominator to improve robotics-related categories (WP:ROBO desperately needs active actors), I don't think the changes suggested here follow this general principle. --Jiuguang (talk) 23:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose All (Please see revised vote below) - I'm sorry, although I recognize the nominator's good faith in improving these categories, an encyclopedia should not be "dumbed down". That style may be better suited on Simple Wiki. On Wikipedia, keeping these robotics categories the way the academic field recognizes it is the best way to describe and serve readers such that the materials and categories portrayed on here will be parallel to those introduced by other academic materials. The names may sound better, but it is quite unnecessary at this point. (Sorry if I'm being too blunt here) - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 00:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excuse me, but I really think you need to read through my comments more carefully -- and with an open mind, if that's possible. "Dumbing down"? That's pretty silly, and way off base. Other than my concern about the term "Biomimetic" -- which I believe is a bit off-target, in any event -- I can't even see anything that would have prompted that comment. Cgingold (talk) 00:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - instead of responding to Cgingold's comments above individually, I thought I'll just leave a single comment here instead. Out of all the proposed changes, I only feel strongly about keeping Category:Ecological robots, and I'll be working to improve it in the next few days (I've already relocated two more articles since this CFD). As for everything else, I think the major disagreement here is the scope of the categories. My opposes are based on the idea that the suggested changes unnecessarily expanded or narrowed the scope of the article (and most of the reasons were "there are not enough articles, so let's narrow the scope"). I personally don't think this is the ideal way to approach the organization problem, but I'll respect the community's decision. And Cgingold - regardless of the outcome, I really do appreciate your efforts, and I'm looking forward to working with you to improve these WP:ROBO articles.
Thanks, sincerely appreciated. Cgingold (talk) 02:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, according to Bionics, "biomimicry or biomimetics is more preferred in technology world in efforts to avoid confusion between the medical term bionics". There's also biomorphic robotics, but I picked "biomimetic" since it is more popular - see [4] and [5]. --Jiuguang (talk) 01:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Category:Biomimetic robots; Category:Therapeutic robots; Category:Robot caused deaths per nom. Rename Category:Artistic robots to Category:Artistic and performing robots. Keep Category:Ecological robots, at least for the time being. I support the proposed renames; I'm not so sure that it's a good idea to use the jargon of the field for categories. Articles are a different story, but with categories it's more important to use language that is helpful to more than just the initiated. "Biomimetric" is way less likely to be understood than "animalian", for instance. And Category:Robot caused deaths is just awkward, not to mention improperly punctuated (should be Category:Robot-caused deaths, if anything.) Any of the proposed names so far would be better than the current name. I understand the WikiProject's enthusiasm for keeping the names they are familiar with, but sometimes I think we need to consider the non-specialist reader. This doesn't mean WP is being "dumbed down". It means it's being written like an encyclopedia, as opposed to like a specialist's guide or a graduate-level textbook. I'm fine with keeping Category:Ecological robots for the time being if there are moves to expand it, without prejudice to a future nomination if this doesn't happen. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep biomimetic - has by far the largest ghits, & "animalian" is used for some sci-fi game. Keep medical and theraputic separate - sufficiently different. Rename deaths per nom, and artistic to Category:Musical performance robots - none of the articles assert creativity, which I imagine is even further off than most of these concepts. All the "ecological" articles should be merged into Ecological robot and the category deleted. Johnbod (talk) 01:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - please see the new Category:Medical robots, which includes three subcategories. Based on this, the proposed rename of Category:Therapeutic robots no longer makes sense. --Jiuguang (talk) 01:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why are we creating new ones on the fly and changing parent categories as we go? Are we trying to make this more confusing than it already is? Please leave the categories alone for at least the time being so we can have a discussion that is at least internally consistent and makes sense to future users who want to comment. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      In an AfD, it is common to improve the article under discussion to save it from deletion, and I'm addressing exactly the issues raised by the nominator. At some point, you'll have to accept the fact that the current structure is in fact, supported by the literature, and the current flaws can be easily fixed by devoting a few hours. I'm sorry - the arguments I'm hearing just doesn't hold up. -Jiuguang (talk) 02:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is not an AfD. From my experience in CfD, I think it's fair to say that editors in general like to see what the categories looked like as far as structure and contents at the time of the nomination. Your "solutions" may not be agreed to by everyone or even by a consensus, so you shouldn't be implementing it during the CfD. As I said, I believe your actions have made this nomination more confusing than it had to be. Just because you disagree with others' arguments doesn't mean you have carte blanche to adjust and readjust with the categories during the nomination. I imagine there are others who feel similarly. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I think new Category:Medical robots was proposed by the nominator (here)...the discussion here is on renaming, not on how the category fits in within the structure. I don't think adding a parent category is inappropriate, but I guess we disagree. I get your point, though, and I don't think further additions are necessary - it's already pretty clear. --Jiuguang (talk) 02:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can't easily disentangle category names from their place in the category structure. Whether or not another similarly-named category exists or is a parent or a subcategory will often play a decisive role in determining whether to delete, rename, or merge a category. Seriously — now I have to go back and reconsider my positions, because some of the changes have already been made. But, whatever ... often requests like this are little more than pro forma wastes of breath. ... (... yes, I recite aloud while typing ...). Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, two points - 1) the new name doesn't account for Roblog and other composing systems..short story, poetry, etc. 2) "artistic robot" has, in fact, been used in literature: [6] (also has nothing to do with visual arts, if I might add). --Jiuguang (talk) 02:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm really puzzled by your first point: seeing as "Artistic robots" is a narrower term than "Artistic and performing robots", it clearly covers (or "accounts for") a smaller variety of robots, NOT a greater variety. On your other point: The mere fact that you came up with a reference to the term "artistic robot" is actually irrelevant -- because what we're trying to do here is to devise a category name that properly describes and conveys to readers what they will actually find in the category. Just because the word "artistic" can be used in different ways, that in no way negates the fact that most readers will understand the term "artistic robots" to refer to robots which are "artistic" in the most common sense of the word, i.e. "displaying skill or talent in the visual arts". They're not likely to infer that it's actually intended to include "poetic" or "musical" or "literary" robots, etc.
    Having said all of that, it's less clear than ever which of these words (other than "musical") can properly be used in this Category name. I've removed Roblog from the category, because it simply isn't a robot of any sort -- it's a blog produced by a robot. (I did, however, add it to Category:Artificial intelligence applications.) The robot that produces the Roblog is the AIBO -- but unless I'm missing something, I just don't see how that fact qualifies it as "artistic" in any sense of the term. As for the ASIMO robot, I could not find anything at all in the article describing its "artistic" capabilities. Can you tell us what it does? Cgingold (talk) 13:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some mention of that info needs to be added to the ASIMO article to support its inclusion in the category. With respect to category names, it's important always to bear in mind that the words we choose can be understood differently by different readers, depending on the context. When the word "artist" is combined with adjectives like "musical" or "performing", etc. it will be understood in its broader sense. But when it's used as a stand-alone term without any of those adjectives, for most readers it will revert to its "default meaning", with the connotation that it refers to a person who works in the visual arts. By broadening the name of the category to Category:Artistic and performing robots we are also clueing readers in to the fact that the word "artistic" is being used in its broader sense. Now, it's possible that that name can be improved upon in some way, but so far nobody has suggested anything better. Cgingold (talk) 14:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great, glad to hear that. Please don't forget to add that info you noted above to the ASIMO article, Jiuguang. Cgingold (talk) 22:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I've softened as the articles added make it clear that there are a lot of artists using robots in some fashion, though we can be certain all intellectual property rights to the work produced are retained by the artist! Johnbod (talk) 22:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revised Vote: -
    • Keep Category:Biomimetic robots: I don't regret making that earlier statement. Changing the category to animalian is just wrong.
    • Keep Category:Medical robots: Jiuguang Wang has made a quite compelling argument in keeping this category, and I'll go with it.
    • Delete Category:Robot caused deaths: there's only two articles linked atm, and I suspect the robotics industry will require a leap in AI in order to create more articles related to this category.
    • Delete Category:Artistic robots: at first I wanted to keep this article, but then I saw a rerun of Top Gear and James May reminded me in one of their Season 11 episodes that a robot (a car in Top Gear's case, but it's on the same parallel) can only be considered art if it serves no function except to exist. The fact that the robot can perform certain tasks, such as walking stairs, gives it purpose, hence I'd consider it automatically not a piece of art. Ultimately this line will automatically declare that robots will never be art, but I digress.
Your last point would be more accurately phrased as "Cgingold appeared to suggest that biomimetics is an 'overly jargonistic' term." My only concern was that it's a bit too jargonistic as an adjective in this particular category name -- and to reiterate, it doesn't properly convey the most salient characteristic of those robots -- their resemblance to animals. On the other hand, assuming that there were enough articles available to populate such a category, I wouldn't have any problem at all with a Category:Biomimetics, since that is a well-recognized field. Cgingold (talk) 22:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I forgot to mention before that Biomimetics is being considered to be merged with bionics. Instead of using biomimetics (because it may seem to be an overly jargonistic adjective), then perhaps changing it to Category:Bionic Robots? The term bionics is more well known with much more ghits than animalistic. And I understand the difference between biomimetic and bionics, but in the spirit of the merger discussion, perhaps this might be a viable compromise. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 22:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really?? -- I'm surprised to hear that (re the proposed merger). All the same, I think your suggestion re Category:Bionic robots is very interesting and worth serious consideration. I would agree that it's a much better known term. I'm not sure if it's the answer or not, but it certainly helps move the discussion forward. (And all of your constructive comments are a very welcome change from your earlier remarks!) Cgingold (talk) 23:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd like to take this opportunity to extend the offer I've made to Cgingold to everyone in this discussion as well. If you would like a better place to hold this discussion, and prefer chatting in IRC, you may go to WP:ROBO's Wikipedia freenode IRC channel: #wikipedia-en-robotics connect. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 23:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - The following topic-thread has been moved from its orginal location above:
Also, according to Bionics, "biomimicry or biomimetics is more preferred in technology world in efforts to avoid confusion between the medical term bionics". There's also biomorphic robotics, but I picked "biomimetic" since it is more popular - see [7] and [8]. --Jiuguang (talk) 01:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as it's been such a distraction, I suppose I would have been better off leaving out that short remark I added on about the term not being commonly used outside of the field. On the other hand, it's curious that there's no Category:Biomimetics to be found. All the same, my principal concern is that it seems slightly off the mark, given that the common feature of the robots in question seems to be that they resemble animals. "Animalian" was the best I could come up with at the time, but I am certainly open to a another term that conveys the same point. Cgingold (talk) 02:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've just seen Category:BEAM robotics, newly-created and added to Category:Biomimetic robots by Jiuguang. It seems to me (based on a quick assessment) that the two terms refer to pretty much the same thing, conceptually. Is there a distinction to be made? At the same time, I still feel that the biomorphic robots in Category:Biomimetic robots are a distinct group deserving its own properly-named category. However, I'm not sure that "biomorphic robots" is satisfactory, as few readers will grasp that it refers to "robots that resemble animals". Cgingold (talk) 03:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The BEAM robotics category exists because we happens to have a series of articles on the subject - it just seemed like the natural to do. While BEAM is conceptually different from its parent category, it does exhibits similar characteristics. So yes, there is a distinction, and no, the categories shouldn't be merged. --Jiuguang (talk) 12:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And to your other points - the phrase you are looking for is "biologically-inspired systems". This a very broad category (you can have a robot with only parts derived from biological systems), and the biomimetic category is specifically for robot resembling their biological counterpart as a whole. You still haven't convinced me that "animalian" includes humans and insects, though. I also cannot find the word in my Oxford dictionary app. I don't like coining new terms like "animalian robots", and I can only support this if you can show (please provide sources) that 1) the scope as described above and 2) that the use of the phrase "animalian robots" is popular culture (I'm willing to let go of the academic use). I don't think you can show me either of these items. --Jiuguang (talk) 12:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Note: While you were replying here, I was responding below. :) Leaving aside the biomimetics/BEAM question, I think we can make some progress here. I know it's hard to keep track of everything, but please do note that I've already said that I'd be happy to find a term other than "animalian". Since you find that word objectionable, let's simply drop that line of discussion entirely, and focus on coming up with a term (other than "biomimetics") that best describes the sort of robots that are currently in that category. Would you agree with my statement that these are "robots that resemble animals"? If so, I would think that we could devise a name that clearly conveys that essential point to the readers. That's basically what I was aiming for with the word "animalian" -- I just didn't happen to hit upon the right word. Cgingold (talk) 13:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. So there are currently two articles in this category that are not animals - FlyTech Dragonfly and Entomopter. I'd like a category that describes biologically inspired robots that resembles humans, insects, or animals. I like biomimetic/biomorphic robots since they receive more Google hits, as mentioned above. But I'm open to suggestions. --Jiuguang (talk) 13:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I pointed out before, humans and insects ARE animals, so that's not an issue here. All we really need is a readily understood term that expresses this notion to the readers. Cgingold (talk) 14:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By your logic below [now above - CG], animal usually refers to mammals like dogs, cats, etc, while insects are referred to separately. This name also doesn't address plant-type robots like this. --Jiuguang (talk) 14:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Jiuguang, but I honestly haven't a clue what you're referring to when you say, "By your logic below." In any event, it's simply not the case that the word animal "usually refers to mammals...". On the contrary, it is well understood to encompass all of the animals in the "animal kingdom", including insects, birds, reptiles -- and humans. That's just standard usage. On your other point, we don't even have an article about "plant-like" robots, so that's purely hypothetical. So I still would like to come up with a name for these "animal-like" robots. Hmmm -- there's a thought. It's not really what I was looking for, but what do you think of Category:Animal-like robots? I was hoping to find a word akin to "humanoid", but I suppose we could do worse. Cgingold (talk) 22:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I meant that below [now above - CG], you wanted to distinguish visual arts and other type of arts, when here, you don't want to separate the various animal types. I suppose that our understanding of other's perception for the use of the word "animal" is different, and I can drop that point. But since you insisted that the category names must reflect the articles already on Wikipedia, I created the article flower robot - now would you agree that "animal-like" no longer covers the topic? --Jiuguang (talk) 00:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • [Unindent] Okay, I've read the new article about flower robots, and I've also gone back and read thru this whole topic-thread again. And what continues to strike me is that the most salient common feature of these robots is that they were purposely designed to resemble recognizable life forms (mostly animals) -- i.e. they are immediately perceived to have such a resemblance stemming principally from their visual appearance, along with other readily perceived characteristics, such as particular movements, sounds, etc. So while it may well be accurate to say that they are "biomimetic", that term encompasses a much broader range of design elements than the group of robots we're talking about. (Btw, I just noticed that biomimetics redirects to biomimicry.)
    In short, I am still determined to find a name that better conveys the sorts of robots that are in this category. When I re-read this thread, I noticed that I had used the term "biomorphic robots". It occurred to me that biomorphic translates loosely to "life-shaped", which isn't too far off from what I just described. I'm not sure I'm entirely sold on this, but let me throw that out as a suggestion: what do people think of Category:Biomorphic robots? Cgingold (talk) 03:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem with that. I mentioned before that I picked "biomimetic" since it is more popular - you get about 3x Google hits with biomimetic, and it is academically recognized (see the IEEE conference here). But if the consensus is to go with biomorphic, sure. --Jiuguang (talk) 14:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:UK SCUBA diving sites

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 13:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:UK SCUBA diving sites to Category:Underwater diving sites in the United Kingdom
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The parent category is Category:Underwater diving sites, and presumably these sites can be used for forms of diving other than scuba. (? not that I'm an expert on this subject, though ?) Also use the full name of the location. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Files that are public domain in the United States but not public domain in country of origin and that must not be hosted on Wikimedia Commons

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 August 24. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Propose renaming Category:Files that are public domain in the United States but not public domain in country of origin and that must not be hosted on Wikimedia Commons to Category:Files that are not in the Public Domain in their country of origin
Nominator's rationale: Current name is wayyyyyyy too long, rivals Longcat maybe, but we should be more concise with these things. ViperSnake151 20:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok with renaming, oppose nom (see below). I agree that it is too long as is, but the suggested version leaves out that a) it is PD in the US and b) Commons is a no-no. Those seem to be very important points. --Kbdank71 13:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any particular reason why details like that couldn't be placed in a usage note on the category, or its talk page, instead of in such an insanely long category name? Bearcat (talk) 08:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After looking at this more closely, there are the two templates {{PD-US}} and {{|tl|Do not move to Commons}} which take care of those tow issues, so no, there is probably no reason to leave that in the category title. But then again, I can't imagine anyone wanting to browse images that are public domain in the US, but not in the country of origin, and don't copy to commons. So renaming seems pointless. Changing to delete. --Kbdank71 17:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have no idea how much of a problem this is. Commons deletes most files on sight not PD in country of origin, and tracking the issue can be hard. While they have developed a movebackbot to deal with the problem (file deleted at local wiki and on Commons, so not useful anywhere) I think warning people BEFORE they move the file is an utmost priority. I do not think categorizing the files (especially if the cat name were hidden) is outside our maintenance goals. -Nard 07:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Districts of the United States

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 13:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Districts of the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: There is only one district in the United States. Category is nonsensical. epicAdam (talk) 20:36, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; I think I can go along with this. Category:Subdivisions of the United States is probably a better parent and organizing by "district" seems to be a type of overcategorization by shared name, since (at least I think) the districts in A.S. are not the same type of jurisdictional body as the District of Columbia. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question is DC a first-level administrative division of the US? If it is, then I'd favor keeping this, if only for completeness in the Category:First-level administrative country subdivisions tree. Neier (talk) 00:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Depends on your definition of first-level administrative division. Traditionally, the definition would only apply to states. The District of Columbia is a city wholly owned and operated by Congress. In that sense, it would not be a first-order administrative division. If it were a first-level administrative country subdivision, DC would be listed with the states, which it is not. In any event, having a category for a single entity is still a little ridiculous as it does not to help users find information or find like-entities. -epicAdam (talk) 06:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question -- What is the staus of Puerto Rico? Also other American possession in the Pacific (e.g. Guam). They are not states. Perhaps these should be merged inot a single non-state category. AS an Englishman, I am not an expert on this. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Puerto Rico, Guam, etc. are self-governing territories officially known as a "U.S. insular areas" (i.e. semi-autonomous territorial possessions of the United States that are not part of the United States itself). There is already a "non-state" category (see Category:Insular areas of the United States), however, the District of Columbia is not an insular area since it and the people who live there are in no way semi-autonomous from the United States. The District of Columbia is a unique entity. Attempts to categorize it would result in a category consisting of a single entity (as it is now), which I believe to be rather silly. Best, epicAdam (talk) 20:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Persons who have been cloned

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Kbdank71 13:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Persons who have been cloned to Category:Cloning
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorisation - small with little or no potential for growth, at least for the next few months/years. If kept, consider renaming to the shorter title of Category:Cloned humans. –Black Falcon (Talk) 20:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Benjamin Zephaniah

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Books by Benjamin Zephaniah. Kbdank71 13:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Benjamin Zephaniah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Eponymous overcategorisation for a person (see Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Eponymous categories for people). All of the material (the main article and two articles about publications) is adequately interlinked from the main article and via {{Benjamin Zephaniah}}. –Black Falcon (Talk) 20:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:User:The Twenty Thousand Tonne Bomb

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: being discussed at WP:UCFD. –Black Falcon (Talk) 20:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:The Twenty Thousand Tonne Bomb (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Pointless category, really. Also fails WP:OWN - "This is my own category".  Asenine  19:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
"The deletion, merging, or renaming of user categories is discussed on this page"(WP:UCFD). I would assume that the two pages are separated because mainspace and user categories have different inclusion guidelines. - Icewedge (talk) 19:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Politics about the military

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 13:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Politics about the military to Category:Military sociology
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Renaming_of_Category:Politics_about_the_military. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename all. Kbdank71 13:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from WP:CFDS at this point.

    • To oppose it point by point:
  1. U.S. states don't compete at the Olympic Games. There is a Georgia at the Olympics article.
  2. UNESCO designates World Heritage Sites for countries, not for U.S. states. Our categorisation scheme follows this.
  3. U.S. state of Georgia doesn't have monarchs, kings, presidents, nor prime ministers.
  4. Same applies for Catholicoses and Patriarchs, or have you seen Georgian Orthodox Church in the U.S. state of Georgia (sic!)?
--Darwinek (talk) 11:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Agree entirely with rationale provided by Darwinek above. No possibility of confusion between Georgia (country) and Georgia (U.S. state) in these instances, so renaming superfluous, over-pedantic, and cumbersome. Think about what the outside reader is going to type in the search field. Incidentally, I would think that the umpteen separate "Olympic" articles for Georgia could be usefully merged into one. --Zlerman (talk) 11:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re specific arguments above. Re #1: U.S. states don't compete at the Olympic Games, but an American from Georgia who participates in the Olympic Games could plausibly be described as an Olympian of or from Georgia. The potential for some confusion exists, especially on the part of the uninitiated who are unaware of the finer details of Olympic teams and participation. Re #2: So you're suggesting that it's impossible for a UNESCO World Heritage Site to be "in" the U.S. state of Georgia? I find that fantastic and obviously nonsensical. Re #3: actually, in the history of the area we call Georgia in America, there have been monarchs and kings that have ruled over the territory. Categories are not temporally limited to the current state of affairs. Re #4: The Georgian Orthodox Church is not the only church body that uses the terminology of "patriarchs" and "catholicoses", and yes, some of these churches exist in the U.S. state of Georgia. It's not beyond the realm of possibility that a person could be a "patriarch of" the U.S. state of Georgia. Re in general: I'm also not aware of any U.S. highways in the country of Georgia, and yet we have Category:U.S. Highways in Georgia (U.S. state). There's quite a body of consensus where it's been agreed we just use the disambiguating term for the placename "Georgia", regardless. Otherwise we have endless debates like this in which there are plausible arugments on either side. It's easier just to have a standard rule, in my opinion, which is what criterion #6 has accomplished. Good Ol’factory (talk) 11:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for now you are the only one supporting this move. Let the community decide this nomination. Personally I think U.S. Highways category that you mentioned, should be renamed too. - Darwinek (talk) 11:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there is ample precedent to back up my position, and speedy criterion #6 supports my position. In other words, I don't have to demonstrate consensus the rename; you (or the community, I should say) have to provide a strong consensus to not follow criterion #6. Right now it's the default naming pattern when "Georgia" is used in a category name. Good Ol’factory (talk) 11:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: I just noticed that some of the Olympics categories (medallists, etc.) use "for", while the majority use "of". Is there really any reason not to use "of" for all of them? Cgingold (talk) 13:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be a naming convention that is in use for all countries competing at the Olympic Games. - Darwinek (talk) 14:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom - we've discussed this plenty of times and have decided never to leave Georgia unaccompanied (whether it is the state or country). Occuli (talk) 13:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all - for consistency and because at least some of the categories have the potential for ambiguity (especially since the Olympics have been held in Georgia (U.S. state). Otto4711 (talk) 14:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per Darwinek. I see no confusion here and consistency is not a requirement.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 14:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This just adds more confusion to the category names. To be honest, just because the nominator didn't realize that Georgia was the country not the state doesn't mean that everyone else didn't either. Editors have to take these in context, and I'm fairly certain that when one links to this category, one knows full well what he's getting. Jared (t)  15:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um, I did realise what was being referred to. I was implementing a convention. Let's not make any unwarranted assumptions about motivations, hm? But I fail to see how a disambiguating term adds more confusion. That would be counterproductive, not to mention counterintuitive. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename for consistency. My support for this is swayed by the fact that the Olympics have been held at Atlanta, and therefore there is thee justifiable possibility of confusion in several of those categories. Grutness...wha? 00:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all. It is clear from the discussions and the facts that all of the 'of people' related categories are ambiguous since the members can actually be from either the state or the county. I fail to see how this rename adds confusion to the categories. Clearly it removes confusion. While consistency is not a requirement, it is a good thing in any published media. Too many of the remaining categories have other issues or potential issues that renaming would work to prevent. The oppose position really needs to build a case for why this rename should not happen. Right now it seems more of ignore common sense and ambiguity and let everyone guess on what should be in these categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename all so that they include 'Georgia (country)'. For WP uniformity, ALL categories and articles that contain 'Georgia' in their name and pertain to the country should have the word '(country)' in their name. This certainly helps the reader to immediately know what the category is about; no reader should have to go to another page or open up the article to figure this out. Hmains (talk) 02:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think it's worth noting, in the context of this discussion, that there are very extensive relations between Georgia (country) and Georgia (U.S. state). For starters, there is a long-standing sister city relationship between the respective capitol cities, Tbilisi and Atlanta -- and Atlanta has the largest population of Georgian expatriates in the United States. Not only that, but battallions of the Georgia National Guard have spent time in the country of Georgia, training Georgian troops and participating in joint military exercises -- with five US soldiers caught there by the sudden outbreak of war. And when the Georgian computers that host the official government websites came under cyber attack in the last few days, the hosting was transferred to a service provider based in... you guessed it, Atlanta, Georgia. There's a good deal more, too. So it's not entirely inconceivable that enough articles could be written about all of this to require the creation of a new category -- perhaps to be called, Category:Georgia (country)–Georgia (U.S. state) relations. You saw it here first! :) Cgingold (talk) 08:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose i.e. Keep all -- The use of disambiguators for Georgia to distingusih the country in the Caucasus from the US State is long-established in WP, and necessary to ensure that articles are correctly categorised. Since this is English WP, The use of "Georgia" for the country will lead to inexperienced editors categorising articles relating to the US State as if they were south of the Caucasus, Peterkingiron (talk) 19:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename the world heritage sites category, as there are surely such sites in the U.S. state. No vote as to the rest (but I would lean against renaming the Olympic categories). bd2412 T 03:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Kashrut

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. As Eliyak points out, these are being used interchangeably. As such, it does make sense to merge them. But that is just my opinion. The masses have spoken, and they want them both. Kbdank71 13:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Kashrut to Category:Kosher food
Nominator's rationale: Merge, "Kashrut" is a lesser-known (to non-Hebrew speakers) term for kosher observance. --Eliyak T·C 09:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (see my revised comments below) Merge per nom - these categories are essentially redundant, and Kosher is the better-known term. Cgingold (talk) 13:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, Kashrut is not "lesser known". In fact Kosher redirects to it. — CharlotteWebb 15:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. "Kashrut" gets 373,000 ghits. "Kosher food" gets 870,000. "Kosher" alone gets more than 20 million (though of course the term can be used colloquially when not speaking specifically of food). I think that's a fairly clear indication of which is more commonly used. By the way, Kosher foods is an independent article. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. As I understand this, Kashrut is basically about dietary laws and Kosher foods are articles about the food. So combining these may not be the best approach. If these were merged, what would be left from this group to be placed in the category Category:Jewish law? Clearly all of the food articles should not be included there. So if mmerged, some cleanup would be required. I have requested comments on the WikiProject Judaism page. Based on any feedback from that request, I may change how I feel about the proposed merge. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'd like to support the preceding explanation -- to confirm that kashrut is a broader concept that the food itself. Kashrut includes Biblical and rabbinic laws and legal discourse, social practices (e.g., supervision, slaughtering), political controversies, household observances that do not involve food (e.g., separating dishes), Passover rules, etc. The food is an outcome from the kashrut system. I do suppose that 'kosher' is better known than 'kashrut' but I can't see a category named 'kosher' alone (w/o "food") because it's an adjective, whereas kashrut is an abstract noun for the overall system and practices. Thanks. HG | Talk 03:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both in light of clarification immediately above. If they are not co-extensive, the more narrow should be a subcategory of the broader, which is what we have right now. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain both - After reading the other comments here, I've taken another look at these categories -- and I think I see the source of the problem, i.e. why I felt they were redundant to one another. Instead of being used for two somewhat distinct groups of articles, they're both being used for all sorts of articles, some of which really belong in the other category. In addition, some of the parent cats on Category:Kosher food would be more appropriate as parents for Category:Kashrut. The overall result is that the distinctions between the two categories have been seriously blurred. When these issues are properly sorted out the inherent distinctions will be more readily apparent. Cgingold (talk) 11:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both because they are not the same thing. "Kashrut" refers to the notion or mitzva while "Kosher food" is about actual foods and food stuffs and there are many articles by now about those two different topics. IZAK (talk) 04:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 04:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both As others have mentioned, "Kashrut" is a concept and a set of requirements and "Kosher foods" are, well, foods. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 16:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Please note that the categories are being used for the same thing. A Category:Kosher foods for the foods themselves would have precisely 0 articles in it, because the kosher status of a food is minor point which would represent over-categorization. --Eliyak T·C 08:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_August_11&oldid=1144710042"